Guys, I am locking comments on this thread since I already have WAY more than we will be able to tackle in a pod. We're going to have to try and figure out how to do this. Everyone who asked a serious, non-trolly question will get an answer, but I dunno if we'll have to do some in writing, or do multiple episodes, etc. A few exceptions: a bunch of you asked MANY questions, and I think I'm going to take one -- with a bias toward one that hadn't been asked elsewhere. Also, some of you asked questions that honestly aren't really for us to answer and that you could Google search. And people who asked massive all-encompassing omni questions, well, your call is important to us, but ... like, I can't spend two hours answering that.
But we're going to do our best. A bunch of these questions are functionally identical so a bunch of them are going to be compressed into single questions for discussion. I may reopened the thread later but for now, comments here are closed.
My God you guys are asking a lot of questions. I think we'll have to trickle out some of the more evergreen answers out across multiple episodes or maybe do a special subs-only post to tackle some of them. But we'll do as many as possible in the next episode.
How can the unavoidably imminent government not only grab power, but then use it wisely to actually return good government to the nation?
As excited as I am for the events of the next few months to play themselves out, I worry about the "dog-who-caught-the-car" phenomenon. Will the new PM successfully make the move from pursuer of power to responsible governor? Will he find a way to staff a strong and balanced front bench? Will he be able to give agency to his ministry so they can disconnect from the overly-managed messaging?
With a massive majority it will not be hard to find resolve and energy for the more urgent things that must be done - but this government will only truly succeed if it gets a second and third term. It will need to keep a firm hand on the tiller as the country is steered back toward the course of strong citizenship, shared values, thrift, and prosperity, as we unravel all of the decade of sorcery that has put the country at such risk.
We can also hope that the agency of competent Cabinet Ministers to do their jobs lends itself to some internal competition and the good governance that accompanies it.
We should also dream big that Poilievre has learned what happens when a political party is turned into a cult movement, with no ability to rejuvenate itself with proper succession planning. A Conservative government needs to embrace the talents at hand and nurture it along instead of treating it like a kindergarten class.
The last paragraph: I think adopting this attitude will define Conservative success and ability to govern long-term. Not adopting this attitude will result in the next conservative government being just another average shoddy 2-termer.
It also depends on a long term sustainable cabinet style of gov't, or a continued lunching from one elected dictatorship to another, with unelected PMO staffers calling the shots. This is what we've been saddled with since JT's father PET held the reins. What seasoned professional in their right mind would tolerate following an edict from an unelected recent graduate that appoints a chief of staff, answerable to the PMO, and not to them as responsible minister? Who would want the job?
This is a question that keeps me.up at night too. Like Jen has said, this is going to be a generational opportunity to make dramatic changes. They will have an unprecedented mandate from Canadians to change things. I desperately want some decentralization of power to occur, this death of the liberal government is giving us more than enough examples of what happens when too much power is concentrated in the hands of a bad actor. But yes, I think Pierre can pivot to leader, but I don't know if he will. Between us and the states we are sorely lacking in statesmen. It saddens me.
I haven't listened yet but will shortly; just so excited that there's a podcast this week!!
Question: Why is it that so many people seem okay with the notion that JT will prorogue and then there will be a leadership race, all while the country waits? And waits. Aaaaaand waaaaiiiits. Why is there not more support and pressure for an election first? Why should Canadians have to suffer while the LPC figures out their own selves, all while government is not functioning?
As long as Parliament is not in session, the party that is still the government for whatever time it has left can’t do any legislative damage. This means, chiefly, the On-Line Harms Bill and the NDP private member’s bill to criminalize residential school “denialism” can’t become law.
The problem is that not only is time not on their side, it is not on ours either given the new resident in the Oval Office. Not that the old one was our friend either, remember KXL?
Katie Telford still seems to fly under the radar, despite being the "mastermind" behind this government. Do you think she will ever be held to account in any capacity? What might the future hold for her?
I certainly hope she is held to account however it is doubtful. She will take all the money she made on the very long gig and wave bye bye as she heads to some fanciful new thing.
For years I have said there are two people running this country her and Trudeau .... then they added their sidekick Singh.
Ritual prosecution of public servants and political staffers after they leave office for “crimes” they are imagined to have committed while in office is not a good way to attract good people to public service. It attracts crooks who know they need to enrich themselves in order to pay their legal bills for the inevitable political trial(s).
I call Katie Telford a crook who should not be in public employ. See my comment above. Look up info yourself, although the internet has likely been sanitized with concentrated bleach, by herself.
I'm curious about her post-PMO options. I know I wouldn't hire her, nor would I trust any org that did. I suppose there's always a diplomatic post in a far-off land...
You can’t call someone a crook, especially someone who is not exactly a public figure, and not risk her suing you for defamation. Internet gossip from motivated trolls doesn’t count as evidence in your defence that your allegation is factually true. Seriously, be careful here. It reflects poorly on you.
Do you know if that was illegal? Not just contrary to accepted practices, in your opinion. You called her a crook, remember. That means you are saying the action broke the law and you know she was the gal who did it.
Her boss, the PM, takes responsibility for everything his employee does in the course of her job duties. If he doesn’t fire her then everything she does as chief of staff is on him. You wouldn’t want to work anywhere where you personally were responsible for decisions the CEO signed off on, would you?
Have you noticed that the same crew that ran the Ontario Liberal Party into the ditch is now running the Liberal Party of Canada off a cliff. Interested if you’d comment on that “talent”.
Indeed, although a lot of Poilievre‘s camp followers also hail from Ontario politics, with the same centrifuging inclinations. This seems to be a non-discriminate problem, and I don’t see a PP PMO being run much differently with Jenni Byrne as puppet master. But we won’t know until we give them a chance to show otherwise.
I would second this question. I was recently nauseated by Kevin O'Leary's sychophantic a$$-licking for trump, and I get this uneasy feeling that PP is tempted to go down that road too.
Perhaps. I'm not ready to drink the trump koolaid about how we suck just yet. He's posted a lot of crap based on his own imagination. Canada is not a fentanyl supplier at the levels he implies, for one.
In terms of defense spending, yes we need to do better.
Also need to actually act on foreign interference claims. India, China, Russia, and I'm sure others are actively interfering with our politicians and public discourse.
Yep. That’s an internal issue about which Canadians have been expressing outrage for at least a year. My response to trump would be something like, “No shit, Sherlock”, and then tell him to back the hell out of our affairs. Same with military spending. This is my opinion only, and of course I can tell there will be lots of disagreement. Fair enough.
Interesting that the Indian Government investigating the human trafficking Canadian college student visa scams just stated that several hundred thousand fake student Indians had been smuggled into the US from Canada. Kind of proves President Trump was right, doesn’t it? Of course the Liberals will cast doubt on the source.
The DND does not have the capacity to absorb that money, the politicos destroyed the DND to that extent. It would take several years to ramp it up. And very few solid candidates will want to apply for and work in a Discrimination-Intolerance-Exclusion wokey environment. Colour-blind merit must be reinstated first.
Great podcast and loved your rant on child care which you are SO, SO right on. I am a senior and have four grandchildren ages 1, 3, 4, 6 which I ended up looking after each of them when they were 1 year to 18 months for couple days so their mom could go back to work. The work and time to find daycare in this country is absolutely ridiculous and is worse under the Liberals than before the "Child Care Program" which is totally unsustainable and is only available for a few.
My sense is that the chaos we know about the mess the Liberals will leave is just the tip of the iceberg. My question for your next podcast is "How bad is the mess they will leave really based on your more detailed knowledge of the politics and what you are hearing?"
The mess will need two full terms turn around and it will probably lead to PP being quite unpopular in his second term due to impatience and he isn’t going to be able to fix all of it and he will make his own mistakes too . It’s really really bad . But it can and will get a lot better . This isn’t even a Liberal issue long term as there are alot of them that could fix this too… it’s Trudeau that is the root of it
Not Just Trudeau. Liberal party, child of Laurentian UnElites, is rotten to the core, as are the Laurentian UnElites. The Trudeau reign has exposed that.
re: childcare that $10/ day thing (haven't read into the workings) but my daycare has now increased our price to $22/ day. I can afford it but screams again the utter stupidity of the LPC rolling out policies and their focus on tweets and feel good messaging.
Would you work for $10 per day to look after a lot of kids?
Daycares increasingly are now staffed less and less by ECEs and so the quality continues to deterioate. Quality daycare costs money. Do you really think any Liberal Trudeau, Freeland when she was Finance Minister and now whoever the current minister responsible for daycare programs is (hard to keep track as they change their cabinet and ministers like musical chairs) really care about quality and sustainable child care program.
$10 per day childcare was always a fantasy that the Liberals dreamt up to get votes as public opinion demanded daycare then provinces were forced to sign on due to voters demanding it. Now provinces are stuck with escalating child care costs. Who in their right mind would think that $10 per day is viable then or long term.
The current program is available to a very very very small number of people were lucky to find it or have connections to Federal government probably. Lots of daycares who signed on to $10 per day program especially in large cities are closing as it is financially not feasible for them to continue with the restrictions of the Liberal program.
A large tax credit to all parents with children perhaps under 8 or whatever would go a long way to easing the problem for EVERYONE. Then daycare could pay their staff better and be able to offer quality childcare with trained ECEs.
Unambitiius? The Liberals almost doubled spending and increased headcount by 40%.They were very ambitious in terms of inputs.
Fixing the mess will be more difficult than fixing the mess left behind by Pierre Trudeau. Laying off employees and ending programs is never easy because of the blow back. The only approach that works is to do it decisively and quickly like Ralph Klein on the 90s. Uike then, the government will not benefit from the tailwinds of free trade and the Boomers being in their prime.
I think that you are making the mistake of measuring government spending in relative terms rather than as a share of the economy. But at any rate, you cannot equate government spending with political ambition. This has been a government with few distinct values and goals to set it apart from most other Canadian governments, and the Trudeau government spending is undisciplined. Think of the money spent on a Firearms Buyback Program that has not collected even a single gun - whatever that is, it's certainly not evidence of a government determined to leave a big legacy.
Attrition always remains a means to gradually shrink a government workforce.
What do you think is behind the lack of action at any level of government in Toronto and Montreal at the pro-palestinian demonstrations replete with illegal activities, vandalizing jewish businesses, harassing jewish neighbourhoods, etc? Is it a simple political calculation that we have more muslim voters than jewish? Do politicians really believe all muslim Canadians automatically support intifada? Is it something worse - do politicians believe a majority of Canadians are anti-semitic? WTF is going on? It's an absolute mystery to me.
Since the days of Official Bilingualism promulgated by Trudeau senior the government of Canada has been run by the Quebec French. The Quebec French were ruled by the Inquisition inspired Anti Semitic Catholic Church. So yes, Canadian liberal politicians believe a majority of Canadians are anti semitic.
I admit was a bit sloppy in phrasing my comments. The Catholic Church stopped being directly influential in Quebec after the 1960s Quebec “Quiet Revolution”. But for 200 years this institution dominated Quebec French education so at least IMHO antisemitism is baked into Quebec culture. So yes individual Catholics are probably less involved in demonstrations than other groups. But the fact that it is culturally entrenched as described above means that people are not even aware of it and turn a blind eye to it.
When you say Canadian “sovereignty”, do you mean the standard civics definition where the Canadian Crown exerts sole, undisputed sovereignty over all the land inside our national borders, or do you mean some kind of hybrid sovereignty that is contaminated by some notion of indigenous land title that exists as a lien on Canadian sovereignty over part (or all!) of the land usually coloured pink on the map of North America? Our ability to become a territory or a state of the U.S. would be impaired if the Government of Canada in right of the King didn’t have clear unencumbered sovereign title to sell the place, any more than you can sell your house if someone disputes your claim to own it. But even short of that, would you expect Canadians to fight for “our” country (or even pay taxes) if it was commonly agreed that it wasn’t really ours and we are just tenants or squatters?
As far as I can tell the Crown still has exclusive dominion over all the land and its resources. Read the Indian Act. Canadians have only paid lip service ($$$) to First Nations claims since they had the shit scared out of them at the Oka insurrection. (As an aside, when did the First Nations warrior pride get replaced by victimhood celebration and whining?). The US largely resolved its “Indian” issue in the 19th century and will not perceive this to be an unresolvable problem if it adopts Canada that it already protects anyway. I can certainly see the Quebec racist society adopting the US 19th century solution - those with a sense of history would call this “the French Indian war redux”😆
I was thinking more of the Delgamuukw decision in 1997 that used that language about a lien on Canadian sovereignty. The Supreme Court suggested this might be the law and sent the case back to the provincial Court in B.C. for retrial under this thinking. No trial was ever held so we don’t know what that language actually means. The activists say it means B.C. isn’t actually part of Canada and the Wetsuwetn are sovereign. That’s not what the decision says but it sounds good on TV to gin up the protesters and blockaders....and insurrectionists. At least in B.C.
There has been much water over the dam as far as Court cases since the Indian Act was passed, which defines only “Status” Indians. Trudeau’s foolish and reckless instruction in his Mandate Letters to his Cabinet Ministers and senior appointments like RCMP Commissioner to interact with the First Nations as 633 “sovereign nations” is damaging to the assumption that the Crown as represented by his government is actually sovereign over them. I think we are in more trouble about this than we think. None of the aboriginals regard their little scraps of Reserve lands as the limits of their sovereign territorial ambitions.
No, of course not. In any kind of political union with the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court would be the final appeal and the Canadian Supreme Court would be dissolved. Any past decisions it had rendered would be valid, in the territory of the former Canada, only if they didn’t conflict with American federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Remember Americans might want to move to Canada — they would be free to — and they would expect the federal law of the United States to apply there exactly as at “home.” This would also mean all of Canada’s own territorial laws would have to be scrutinized for harmony. Gun legislation would have to be compliant with the Second Amendment, for example. And our Territorial Government structure would have to be republican, not parliamentary, if we ever wanted to be elevated to statehood.
The Americans would see no reason to honour the aboriginal treaties as they were made with a now-defunct entity, the Crown. The aboriginals would be governed the way Native American Reservations are now. Remember one reason the 13 Colonies rebelled was because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 dealing with the Ohio Country, and later the Quebec Act, robbed them of the rights to the land they had spilled their blood for against the French and Indians. And now the King was going to, essentially, give it to the Indians (and preserve the “viper of Popery” in Quebec proper.) This was one of the “Intolerable Acts” that led to rebellion.
The United States would never accept that anyone but themselves (“We the People”) has sovereignty over any American territory. In the U.S. currently, an Indian Nation that is recognized by the Dept. of the Interior becomes sovereign from the State it is located in. (The Dept. may withdraw this recognition at its pleasure, at which the land reverts to the private ownership of the tribal corporation and has to pay state and local taxes and obey state laws.) State laws (against gambling, say) don’t apply on the Reservation but the “Indian Nation” is indubitably under federal law as American soil. Any claim by Canadian aboriginals to sovereignty over any part of the new Canadian Territory of the United States would be instantly extinguished, by the U.S. Army if necessary under the Insurrection Act.
Question from the Alberta redneck vet for both of you.
The pendulum always swings back. And the last foot to the left is the same as that first food back to the right. Except for the tip. Just the tip. 2 questions 1) What event/issue/reason do you think the general public finally said “enough” and the pendulum started to swing back ?
2). In your wildest imagination what could someday be that same tick on the right when it eventually swings back to the left?
As a member of the general public, I started to sour on this govt pre-Covid and the left in general. But when Trudeau wondered out loud, "Should we tolerate these people?" for me, that encapsulated the entire problem with the Canadian progressive experiment. It was groupthink, it was thought police, it was my revulsion at the idea that our PM could cast out a sizeable segment of our own population for not falling into line. It cast the left in an ugly light. Good question re: what will tip it back.
I couldn't tolerate his people when he compared my family and friends to racists, misogynist, fringe minority, white supremisist, those people. I can't count anymore how many times he insulted those nasty plebs (aka taxpayers)
Indeed! I, for one, am looking forward to it. And I was talking to a guy on Mastodon who was looking for a good book on moral panics through the ages. I directed him to Jen's substack. Don't know if he ever came by for a look.
What is Trudeau hanging on for. Guys, this is too easy. The longer he hangs on the longer he is the centre of attention, just what the little narcicist needs every day of his glorious existence. We know he does not give a shit about the LPC or the nation itself. This is pure theatre if the Turd.
There is zero evidence that Trudeau relishes in the hatred or "attention" that certain Conservatives have held for him simply for being his father's son. More likely is that Trudeau sacrificed his marriage for the sake of his political career (speculative though this is), and that therefore he is desperate to reap greater political rewards on sunk personal costs.
This is one of the many time where you are way off mark. Your perception index is .... low. Your smarts is good, but your perception index is not where it should be, and never will be where it should be. Keen perceptivity is just not one of your talents. You misread situations too often.
Do you have any advice for those of us who are never going to vote for Pollievre but find the other options loathsome? Also as a new paid subscriber I wonder if Matt interrupts Jen and talks over her at least once every podcast? It's a pattern I noticed before I became a paid subscriber. Maybe I'm too sensitive but it bugs me. Not enough to stop listening but still annoying.
Hi Susan. I'm a not a conservative in any sense of the word and have never voted conservative. I'm not going to start now, given the odiousness of my local candidates. I subscribed to The Line (and some other independent more conservative-leaning media outlets) to get out of my progressive bubble and try to better understand conservative perspectives.
Bravo. Same reason I subscribe to The NY Times and occasionally listen to CBC ( to me its kind of like drinking cloying communion wine, but it’s the price of admission) You need the other side’s perspective to strengthen your own.
Neither had I until Stephen Harper and then only once for him. I didn’t even vote for Mulroney during the Free(r) Trade election and that would have been a terrible mistake had the electorate voted the same way I did. One good reason for you to vote for your local conservative candidate would be that if they get in, there is nothing more obscure and powerless than a Government backbencher. Seriously if they are bad people, not Cabinet material, (and not just right-wingers whose views you don’t like), they will be harmless in the House of Commons. The safest place to put them. Being an MP with no chance to get into Cabinet is such a crappy job you don’t expect anybody any good to want to do it.
Hey Jen. I have a work friend who considers herself Libertarian and calls me a Commie. Because I think natural resources should be nationalized and we should scrap piecemeal social welfare programs in favour of universal basic income. I'm more NDP than Liberal but the current federal NDP is embarrassing. I also think good policy doesn't respect party affiliation and qve voted for other parties. My riding always has a lot of candidates, including from the Communist Party of Canada. I've never voted for them.
National resources are already nationalized, they belong to the Crown, and here in Canada in that sense the Crown is the state, and the state - that is you and me.
The state practically gives away rights to timber and oil and gas and minerals for private profit. And we get to pay to clean up the messes, like old oil and gas wells and abandoned mines. Hardly a good deal for us.
I like it. Having experienced living in poverty, social programs can be hard to access and not enough to live on. People can't improve their lives if they are hungry and sick and don't have a safe place to live. I think UBI would be way less work to administer and possibly more effective in terms of outcomes.
I haven't really noticed any interrupting other than when they have a laggy connection with a delay, which isn't easy to navigate. That hasn't happened in a while though.
I have voted strategically in the past. Next election I will most certainly not be voting for the local conservative candidate. He's odious and many locals were delighted he lost the seat in the last election.
Guys, I am locking comments on this thread since I already have WAY more than we will be able to tackle in a pod. We're going to have to try and figure out how to do this. Everyone who asked a serious, non-trolly question will get an answer, but I dunno if we'll have to do some in writing, or do multiple episodes, etc. A few exceptions: a bunch of you asked MANY questions, and I think I'm going to take one -- with a bias toward one that hadn't been asked elsewhere. Also, some of you asked questions that honestly aren't really for us to answer and that you could Google search. And people who asked massive all-encompassing omni questions, well, your call is important to us, but ... like, I can't spend two hours answering that.
But we're going to do our best. A bunch of these questions are functionally identical so a bunch of them are going to be compressed into single questions for discussion. I may reopened the thread later but for now, comments here are closed.
My God you guys are asking a lot of questions. I think we'll have to trickle out some of the more evergreen answers out across multiple episodes or maybe do a special subs-only post to tackle some of them. But we'll do as many as possible in the next episode.
Can we all agree that prorogation is really bad for the country of Canada?
Yes.
Yes, and that is why Trudeau will prorogate.
How can the unavoidably imminent government not only grab power, but then use it wisely to actually return good government to the nation?
As excited as I am for the events of the next few months to play themselves out, I worry about the "dog-who-caught-the-car" phenomenon. Will the new PM successfully make the move from pursuer of power to responsible governor? Will he find a way to staff a strong and balanced front bench? Will he be able to give agency to his ministry so they can disconnect from the overly-managed messaging?
With a massive majority it will not be hard to find resolve and energy for the more urgent things that must be done - but this government will only truly succeed if it gets a second and third term. It will need to keep a firm hand on the tiller as the country is steered back toward the course of strong citizenship, shared values, thrift, and prosperity, as we unravel all of the decade of sorcery that has put the country at such risk.
Happy New Year to you both.
Great comments.
We can also hope that the agency of competent Cabinet Ministers to do their jobs lends itself to some internal competition and the good governance that accompanies it.
We should also dream big that Poilievre has learned what happens when a political party is turned into a cult movement, with no ability to rejuvenate itself with proper succession planning. A Conservative government needs to embrace the talents at hand and nurture it along instead of treating it like a kindergarten class.
The last paragraph: I think adopting this attitude will define Conservative success and ability to govern long-term. Not adopting this attitude will result in the next conservative government being just another average shoddy 2-termer.
They will need four terms. Three is not enough.
It also depends on a long term sustainable cabinet style of gov't, or a continued lunching from one elected dictatorship to another, with unelected PMO staffers calling the shots. This is what we've been saddled with since JT's father PET held the reins. What seasoned professional in their right mind would tolerate following an edict from an unelected recent graduate that appoints a chief of staff, answerable to the PMO, and not to them as responsible minister? Who would want the job?
Well put.
This is a question that keeps me.up at night too. Like Jen has said, this is going to be a generational opportunity to make dramatic changes. They will have an unprecedented mandate from Canadians to change things. I desperately want some decentralization of power to occur, this death of the liberal government is giving us more than enough examples of what happens when too much power is concentrated in the hands of a bad actor. But yes, I think Pierre can pivot to leader, but I don't know if he will. Between us and the states we are sorely lacking in statesmen. It saddens me.
I haven't listened yet but will shortly; just so excited that there's a podcast this week!!
Question: Why is it that so many people seem okay with the notion that JT will prorogue and then there will be a leadership race, all while the country waits? And waits. Aaaaaand waaaaiiiits. Why is there not more support and pressure for an election first? Why should Canadians have to suffer while the LPC figures out their own selves, all while government is not functioning?
As long as Parliament is not in session, the party that is still the government for whatever time it has left can’t do any legislative damage. This means, chiefly, the On-Line Harms Bill and the NDP private member’s bill to criminalize residential school “denialism” can’t become law.
Agreed, that waiting for the third or fourth party to sort out their leadership should not be a priority for Canadians.
It won’t be ok. Time is not on their side. No matter what, the longer this goes on, the worse it is going to be on election day, new leader or not.
The problem is that not only is time not on their side, it is not on ours either given the new resident in the Oval Office. Not that the old one was our friend either, remember KXL?
Exactly. Dems have never been on our side, either. Time for us to get our shit together just for the sake of finally getting our shit together.
LPC does not give a flyin' flame about Canadians, and after this never will. Hope they are neutered forever.
Katie Telford still seems to fly under the radar, despite being the "mastermind" behind this government. Do you think she will ever be held to account in any capacity? What might the future hold for her?
I certainly hope she is held to account however it is doubtful. She will take all the money she made on the very long gig and wave bye bye as she heads to some fanciful new thing.
For years I have said there are two people running this country her and Trudeau .... then they added their sidekick Singh.
Add Gerry Butts in there as well.
Indeed
Ritual prosecution of public servants and political staffers after they leave office for “crimes” they are imagined to have committed while in office is not a good way to attract good people to public service. It attracts crooks who know they need to enrich themselves in order to pay their legal bills for the inevitable political trial(s).
Well given the shit show of the past 10 years I'm not sure the liberals attracted the sharpest tacks in the drawer in the first place.
I call Katie Telford a crook who should not be in public employ. See my comment above. Look up info yourself, although the internet has likely been sanitized with concentrated bleach, by herself.
I'm curious about her post-PMO options. I know I wouldn't hire her, nor would I trust any org that did. I suppose there's always a diplomatic post in a far-off land...
Local jail in Nunavut.
You can’t call someone a crook, especially someone who is not exactly a public figure, and not risk her suing you for defamation. Internet gossip from motivated trolls doesn’t count as evidence in your defence that your allegation is factually true. Seriously, be careful here. It reflects poorly on you.
It is the lack of "ritual" prosecution that attracts crooks. Easy low-risk feeding.
She shredded the hell out of shredders and burned the harddrives in Ontario. Entirely contrary to accepted practices in any decent civil service.
Do you know if that was illegal? Not just contrary to accepted practices, in your opinion. You called her a crook, remember. That means you are saying the action broke the law and you know she was the gal who did it.
What might the future hold for her?
How about a cozy sinecure as an “Independent” Senator.
No.
Psst. This is my official question for Matt and Jen 🙂
A modern equivalent of Martin Bormann, that one...
Her boss, the PM, takes responsibility for everything his employee does in the course of her job duties. If he doesn’t fire her then everything she does as chief of staff is on him. You wouldn’t want to work anywhere where you personally were responsible for decisions the CEO signed off on, would you?
Have you noticed that the same crew that ran the Ontario Liberal Party into the ditch is now running the Liberal Party of Canada off a cliff. Interested if you’d comment on that “talent”.
This is an excellent question, hoping they will pick it up. I remember my dark cursing when Troodas The Judas picked his "team".
Indeed, although a lot of Poilievre‘s camp followers also hail from Ontario politics, with the same centrifuging inclinations. This seems to be a non-discriminate problem, and I don’t see a PP PMO being run much differently with Jenni Byrne as puppet master. But we won’t know until we give them a chance to show otherwise.
Happy New Year Don!
I have concerns about Byrne but I hope she was taking notes.
Have a happy new year as well Richard!
Hi Guys,
A few podcasts ago, you mentioned Trump's election killing any chances of Quebec sovereignty in the near term. Can you elaborate on this?
Have a great week.
Do you have any idea of how Polievre might try to handle Trump? Also, do you reasonably think that Polievre will invest in DND to 2% of GDP?
I would second this question. I was recently nauseated by Kevin O'Leary's sychophantic a$$-licking for trump, and I get this uneasy feeling that PP is tempted to go down that road too.
Agreeing with Trump is not butt licking . His issues with Canada have legitimatacy . We have been terrible at the files that matter to the US
We have not been terrible ........ Trudeauist Liebranodips have.
Perhaps. I'm not ready to drink the trump koolaid about how we suck just yet. He's posted a lot of crap based on his own imagination. Canada is not a fentanyl supplier at the levels he implies, for one.
Agreeing that Justin has been incompetent and negligent on governing areas that upset the US
Is not drinking Trump Kool Aid .
Not to mention terrible on the files that matter to us (Canadians)
In terms of defense spending, yes we need to do better.
Also need to actually act on foreign interference claims. India, China, Russia, and I'm sure others are actively interfering with our politicians and public discourse.
Not sure what else you were referring to.
Yep. That’s an internal issue about which Canadians have been expressing outrage for at least a year. My response to trump would be something like, “No shit, Sherlock”, and then tell him to back the hell out of our affairs. Same with military spending. This is my opinion only, and of course I can tell there will be lots of disagreement. Fair enough.
Agreed, Along with all our other ally partnerships.
Interesting that the Indian Government investigating the human trafficking Canadian college student visa scams just stated that several hundred thousand fake student Indians had been smuggled into the US from Canada. Kind of proves President Trump was right, doesn’t it? Of course the Liberals will cast doubt on the source.
The DND does not have the capacity to absorb that money, the politicos destroyed the DND to that extent. It would take several years to ramp it up. And very few solid candidates will want to apply for and work in a Discrimination-Intolerance-Exclusion wokey environment. Colour-blind merit must be reinstated first.
Great podcast and loved your rant on child care which you are SO, SO right on. I am a senior and have four grandchildren ages 1, 3, 4, 6 which I ended up looking after each of them when they were 1 year to 18 months for couple days so their mom could go back to work. The work and time to find daycare in this country is absolutely ridiculous and is worse under the Liberals than before the "Child Care Program" which is totally unsustainable and is only available for a few.
My sense is that the chaos we know about the mess the Liberals will leave is just the tip of the iceberg. My question for your next podcast is "How bad is the mess they will leave really based on your more detailed knowledge of the politics and what you are hearing?"
The mess will need two full terms turn around and it will probably lead to PP being quite unpopular in his second term due to impatience and he isn’t going to be able to fix all of it and he will make his own mistakes too . It’s really really bad . But it can and will get a lot better . This isn’t even a Liberal issue long term as there are alot of them that could fix this too… it’s Trudeau that is the root of it
Not Just Trudeau. Liberal party, child of Laurentian UnElites, is rotten to the core, as are the Laurentian UnElites. The Trudeau reign has exposed that.
re: childcare that $10/ day thing (haven't read into the workings) but my daycare has now increased our price to $22/ day. I can afford it but screams again the utter stupidity of the LPC rolling out policies and their focus on tweets and feel good messaging.
Would you work for $10 per day to look after a lot of kids?
Daycares increasingly are now staffed less and less by ECEs and so the quality continues to deterioate. Quality daycare costs money. Do you really think any Liberal Trudeau, Freeland when she was Finance Minister and now whoever the current minister responsible for daycare programs is (hard to keep track as they change their cabinet and ministers like musical chairs) really care about quality and sustainable child care program.
$10 per day childcare was always a fantasy that the Liberals dreamt up to get votes as public opinion demanded daycare then provinces were forced to sign on due to voters demanding it. Now provinces are stuck with escalating child care costs. Who in their right mind would think that $10 per day is viable then or long term.
The current program is available to a very very very small number of people were lucky to find it or have connections to Federal government probably. Lots of daycares who signed on to $10 per day program especially in large cities are closing as it is financially not feasible for them to continue with the restrictions of the Liberal program.
A large tax credit to all parents with children perhaps under 8 or whatever would go a long way to easing the problem for EVERYONE. Then daycare could pay their staff better and be able to offer quality childcare with trained ECEs.
Obviously not, I can barely even handle my kid. That's why the program was stupid.
We sent our kid to boujie pre school which had like a $1k enrollment fee and found out later it was eligible after a couple of months.
Daycare like everything else the lib touch they just break.
You are very right to say that everything the Liberals touch they break and I would add or make worse.
I have several grandkids all under 6 and the child care is so hard so I totally understand the problem.
I was just pointing out that the Liberals have made it worse as now child care is more unavailable than before they started their stupid program.
Hope you find a solution for your child care don’t give up.
The Liberals ran an unambitious government, so fixing the worst of their mistakes will be relatively easy.
Unambitiius? The Liberals almost doubled spending and increased headcount by 40%.They were very ambitious in terms of inputs.
Fixing the mess will be more difficult than fixing the mess left behind by Pierre Trudeau. Laying off employees and ending programs is never easy because of the blow back. The only approach that works is to do it decisively and quickly like Ralph Klein on the 90s. Uike then, the government will not benefit from the tailwinds of free trade and the Boomers being in their prime.
I think that you are making the mistake of measuring government spending in relative terms rather than as a share of the economy. But at any rate, you cannot equate government spending with political ambition. This has been a government with few distinct values and goals to set it apart from most other Canadian governments, and the Trudeau government spending is undisciplined. Think of the money spent on a Firearms Buyback Program that has not collected even a single gun - whatever that is, it's certainly not evidence of a government determined to leave a big legacy.
Attrition always remains a means to gradually shrink a government workforce.
What do you think is behind the lack of action at any level of government in Toronto and Montreal at the pro-palestinian demonstrations replete with illegal activities, vandalizing jewish businesses, harassing jewish neighbourhoods, etc? Is it a simple political calculation that we have more muslim voters than jewish? Do politicians really believe all muslim Canadians automatically support intifada? Is it something worse - do politicians believe a majority of Canadians are anti-semitic? WTF is going on? It's an absolute mystery to me.
Since the days of Official Bilingualism promulgated by Trudeau senior the government of Canada has been run by the Quebec French. The Quebec French were ruled by the Inquisition inspired Anti Semitic Catholic Church. So yes, Canadian liberal politicians believe a majority of Canadians are anti semitic.
I don't think it's Catholics participating in these demonstrations. Sure, there might be a few in there, but they aren't the key players.
I admit was a bit sloppy in phrasing my comments. The Catholic Church stopped being directly influential in Quebec after the 1960s Quebec “Quiet Revolution”. But for 200 years this institution dominated Quebec French education so at least IMHO antisemitism is baked into Quebec culture. So yes individual Catholics are probably less involved in demonstrations than other groups. But the fact that it is culturally entrenched as described above means that people are not even aware of it and turn a blind eye to it.
Here’s my question as a subscriber:
When you say Canadian “sovereignty”, do you mean the standard civics definition where the Canadian Crown exerts sole, undisputed sovereignty over all the land inside our national borders, or do you mean some kind of hybrid sovereignty that is contaminated by some notion of indigenous land title that exists as a lien on Canadian sovereignty over part (or all!) of the land usually coloured pink on the map of North America? Our ability to become a territory or a state of the U.S. would be impaired if the Government of Canada in right of the King didn’t have clear unencumbered sovereign title to sell the place, any more than you can sell your house if someone disputes your claim to own it. But even short of that, would you expect Canadians to fight for “our” country (or even pay taxes) if it was commonly agreed that it wasn’t really ours and we are just tenants or squatters?
As far as I can tell the Crown still has exclusive dominion over all the land and its resources. Read the Indian Act. Canadians have only paid lip service ($$$) to First Nations claims since they had the shit scared out of them at the Oka insurrection. (As an aside, when did the First Nations warrior pride get replaced by victimhood celebration and whining?). The US largely resolved its “Indian” issue in the 19th century and will not perceive this to be an unresolvable problem if it adopts Canada that it already protects anyway. I can certainly see the Quebec racist society adopting the US 19th century solution - those with a sense of history would call this “the French Indian war redux”😆
I was thinking more of the Delgamuukw decision in 1997 that used that language about a lien on Canadian sovereignty. The Supreme Court suggested this might be the law and sent the case back to the provincial Court in B.C. for retrial under this thinking. No trial was ever held so we don’t know what that language actually means. The activists say it means B.C. isn’t actually part of Canada and the Wetsuwetn are sovereign. That’s not what the decision says but it sounds good on TV to gin up the protesters and blockaders....and insurrectionists. At least in B.C.
There has been much water over the dam as far as Court cases since the Indian Act was passed, which defines only “Status” Indians. Trudeau’s foolish and reckless instruction in his Mandate Letters to his Cabinet Ministers and senior appointments like RCMP Commissioner to interact with the First Nations as 633 “sovereign nations” is damaging to the assumption that the Crown as represented by his government is actually sovereign over them. I think we are in more trouble about this than we think. None of the aboriginals regard their little scraps of Reserve lands as the limits of their sovereign territorial ambitions.
Another question. Which Supreme Court will be top? Will the US SC take notice of Canadian SC rulings?
I suspect not.
No, of course not. In any kind of political union with the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court would be the final appeal and the Canadian Supreme Court would be dissolved. Any past decisions it had rendered would be valid, in the territory of the former Canada, only if they didn’t conflict with American federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Remember Americans might want to move to Canada — they would be free to — and they would expect the federal law of the United States to apply there exactly as at “home.” This would also mean all of Canada’s own territorial laws would have to be scrutinized for harmony. Gun legislation would have to be compliant with the Second Amendment, for example. And our Territorial Government structure would have to be republican, not parliamentary, if we ever wanted to be elevated to statehood.
The Americans would see no reason to honour the aboriginal treaties as they were made with a now-defunct entity, the Crown. The aboriginals would be governed the way Native American Reservations are now. Remember one reason the 13 Colonies rebelled was because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 dealing with the Ohio Country, and later the Quebec Act, robbed them of the rights to the land they had spilled their blood for against the French and Indians. And now the King was going to, essentially, give it to the Indians (and preserve the “viper of Popery” in Quebec proper.) This was one of the “Intolerable Acts” that led to rebellion.
Ask Trump if he'll abide by the TRC Report and First Nations land claims. The AFN should be totally against Canada as 51st state.
The United States would never accept that anyone but themselves (“We the People”) has sovereignty over any American territory. In the U.S. currently, an Indian Nation that is recognized by the Dept. of the Interior becomes sovereign from the State it is located in. (The Dept. may withdraw this recognition at its pleasure, at which the land reverts to the private ownership of the tribal corporation and has to pay state and local taxes and obey state laws.) State laws (against gambling, say) don’t apply on the Reservation but the “Indian Nation” is indubitably under federal law as American soil. Any claim by Canadian aboriginals to sovereignty over any part of the new Canadian Territory of the United States would be instantly extinguished, by the U.S. Army if necessary under the Insurrection Act.
Question from the Alberta redneck vet for both of you.
The pendulum always swings back. And the last foot to the left is the same as that first food back to the right. Except for the tip. Just the tip. 2 questions 1) What event/issue/reason do you think the general public finally said “enough” and the pendulum started to swing back ?
2). In your wildest imagination what could someday be that same tick on the right when it eventually swings back to the left?
Ian
As a member of the general public, I started to sour on this govt pre-Covid and the left in general. But when Trudeau wondered out loud, "Should we tolerate these people?" for me, that encapsulated the entire problem with the Canadian progressive experiment. It was groupthink, it was thought police, it was my revulsion at the idea that our PM could cast out a sizeable segment of our own population for not falling into line. It cast the left in an ugly light. Good question re: what will tip it back.
I couldn't tolerate his people when he compared my family and friends to racists, misogynist, fringe minority, white supremisist, those people. I can't count anymore how many times he insulted those nasty plebs (aka taxpayers)
Yes, the problem I have with the left is their intolerance of those who disagree with them. They're just so ridiculously cultly.
More evidence of the pendulum swinging back. Bill Burr now has a routine that makes fun of Liberals who try and pretend they were never that far left.
Jen you keep taking about your book. When is it coming out?
Indeed! I, for one, am looking forward to it. And I was talking to a guy on Mastodon who was looking for a good book on moral panics through the ages. I directed him to Jen's substack. Don't know if he ever came by for a look.
What is Trudeau hanging on for. Guys, this is too easy. The longer he hangs on the longer he is the centre of attention, just what the little narcicist needs every day of his glorious existence. We know he does not give a shit about the LPC or the nation itself. This is pure theatre if the Turd.
Oh, and don't forget, the Face Painter is the "only" one who can "save" us from that "evil" PP.
Crap on a cracker, as they say, but that is certainly a motivation.
There is zero evidence that Trudeau relishes in the hatred or "attention" that certain Conservatives have held for him simply for being his father's son. More likely is that Trudeau sacrificed his marriage for the sake of his political career (speculative though this is), and that therefore he is desperate to reap greater political rewards on sunk personal costs.
This is one of the many time where you are way off mark. Your perception index is .... low. Your smarts is good, but your perception index is not where it should be, and never will be where it should be. Keen perceptivity is just not one of your talents. You misread situations too often.
The Line comment section is not where we psychoanalyze each other.
Do you have any advice for those of us who are never going to vote for Pollievre but find the other options loathsome? Also as a new paid subscriber I wonder if Matt interrupts Jen and talks over her at least once every podcast? It's a pattern I noticed before I became a paid subscriber. Maybe I'm too sensitive but it bugs me. Not enough to stop listening but still annoying.
I would invite an intrepid listener to count the interruptions we inflict upon each other.
And, here, Leslie, I was under the impression that the chief interrupter (l'interruptioniste?) was the female lead.
Yeah, "l'interruptioniste" sounds just excellent to me!
Ha ha ha...
Leslie, I guess my question would have to be, Why are you never going to vote for Mr. Poilievre?
Hi Susan. I'm a not a conservative in any sense of the word and have never voted conservative. I'm not going to start now, given the odiousness of my local candidates. I subscribed to The Line (and some other independent more conservative-leaning media outlets) to get out of my progressive bubble and try to better understand conservative perspectives.
Bravo. Same reason I subscribe to The NY Times and occasionally listen to CBC ( to me its kind of like drinking cloying communion wine, but it’s the price of admission) You need the other side’s perspective to strengthen your own.
Strong stomach. Mine has been revolting for years now.
Neither had I until Stephen Harper and then only once for him. I didn’t even vote for Mulroney during the Free(r) Trade election and that would have been a terrible mistake had the electorate voted the same way I did. One good reason for you to vote for your local conservative candidate would be that if they get in, there is nothing more obscure and powerless than a Government backbencher. Seriously if they are bad people, not Cabinet material, (and not just right-wingers whose views you don’t like), they will be harmless in the House of Commons. The safest place to put them. Being an MP with no chance to get into Cabinet is such a crappy job you don’t expect anybody any good to want to do it.
Be more specific Leslie regarding “I’m not a conservative in any sense of the word”. What makes you vote Liberal/NDP?
Hey Jen. I have a work friend who considers herself Libertarian and calls me a Commie. Because I think natural resources should be nationalized and we should scrap piecemeal social welfare programs in favour of universal basic income. I'm more NDP than Liberal but the current federal NDP is embarrassing. I also think good policy doesn't respect party affiliation and qve voted for other parties. My riding always has a lot of candidates, including from the Communist Party of Canada. I've never voted for them.
National resources are already nationalized, they belong to the Crown, and here in Canada in that sense the Crown is the state, and the state - that is you and me.
The state practically gives away rights to timber and oil and gas and minerals for private profit. And we get to pay to clean up the messes, like old oil and gas wells and abandoned mines. Hardly a good deal for us.
How do you feel about the saying, “a hand up rather than a hand out”?
I like it. Having experienced living in poverty, social programs can be hard to access and not enough to live on. People can't improve their lives if they are hungry and sick and don't have a safe place to live. I think UBI would be way less work to administer and possibly more effective in terms of outcomes.
I haven't really noticed any interrupting other than when they have a laggy connection with a delay, which isn't easy to navigate. That hasn't happened in a while though.
No interruptions that I noticed today. I forgot about internet lags to be honest.
I find that the interruptions go both ways, but I also think they are caused by tech issues and internet gaps most of the time.
Are you incapable of holding your nose ? Re. Pollievre. You want sanity back, that is the only option.
I have voted strategically in the past. Next election I will most certainly not be voting for the local conservative candidate. He's odious and many locals were delighted he lost the seat in the last election.
What about the new Canadian Future Party?
Well they had a press conference... and then?? If they ran in my riding I would read the party platform and consider the credibility of the candidate.
Puff in the wind, dead man walking, etc. A mirror image of PPC, if that.